President Trump drops another Mother Of All Bombs, this time in a twitter version directly targeted at a corrupted and politicized James Comey Dept. of Justice.

And what’s more stunning in the aftershock is the media’s incapacity to take the new Trump/Comey timeline information and add it to the existing Sally Yates timeline.

Then again, to do so would be to expose another level of FBI/DOJ politicization that remains hidden from public consumption. Another political operative, Asst. Director of Counter Intelligence, Bill Priestap, who accompanied acting AG Sally Yates to the meeting with White House Counsel Don McGahn, is a Hillary Clinton campaign donor.

♦We know from Director James Comey’sown admission to congress that he intentionally withheld congressional notification of a counter-intelligence investigation that began in July of 2016.

Within Comey’s March 20th testimony to explain why he intentionally avoided congressional oversight, he cited the recommendation of Bill Priestap, Asst. Director of Counter Intelligence.

Bill Priestapis married to Sabina Menshell a self-employed “consultant” with a history of donations to Democrat candidates, specifically to Hillary Clinton.

♦We also know from Sally Yates testimony (May 8th), where she outlined the notification of White House Counsel Don McGahn of the issues the DOJ had with Michael Flynn, that Yates took Bill Priestap with her to the WH meeting on January 26th.

So let’s add President Trump’s meeting with FBI Director James Comey into the timeline of Sally Yates, and add her version of what McGahn’s concerns were about the content of the afternoon meeting:

•Friday January 20th – Inauguration

•TuesdayJanuary 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI.

•WednesdayJanuary 25th – The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

•ThursdayJanuary 26th – (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.

Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed; wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative? And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?

Think about it.

If you were President under those circumstances, wouldn’t you ask FBI Director James Comey what the deal was with these investigations, and whether or not you were under investigation BEFORE you took action to retain or fire Mike Flynn?

Given the circumstances it could appear, and most definitely should be considered, that the President was being ‘set-up’ to impede an FBI investigation by taking action against Flynn.

If Trump took action – What mechanism was in place for the President to protect himself from accusations of impropriety and impeding an investigation?

Who is to say Yates and Priestap would stand behind the White House and support action taken by the President?

What confidence would President Trump have that Yates/Priestap would speak publicly about their advice?

What would FBI Director Comey and Asst. FBI Director McCabe do with a President Trump conversation about Mike Flynn who was “under investigation”?

Remember, for reference: On February 15th while discussing another issue FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe asked Chief of Staff Reince Priebus for 5 minutes alone after the meeting. At the one-on-one McCabe told Priebus the New York Times Russia and Trump campaign story was a “bunch of BS”.

Priebus asked McCabe if McCabe would be able to say that publicly. McCabe said he would check. Later, McCabe called back and said he couldn’t issue a statement about it. SEE SCREENGRAB:

UPDATE 7:30pm: As if on cue, THIS is the exact trap we are talking about above.

SEE? In the first paragraph of the first article to draw attention to the timeline, the accusation is made that President Trump was “interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation”.

That is exactly the trap that Director Comey, Acting AG Yates and Asst. Director of DOJ Counter Intel Priestap were laying out. Director Comey went to that dinner HOPING that Trump would ask him about Michael Flynn which would be seen as impeding a federal investigation.

For several months the media have been steadfast in their efforts to turn this into Watergate 2.0. To achieve that objective the political angle-players and media need only to paint Trump into a corner with a credible accusation of the president interfering with an FBI investigation (Flynn). Against the timeline above, as played out this week with Sally Yates testimony to congress, they were only a couple more timely misinformation leaks and twisted reports away from making that happen.

The insane media bellows that Mr. Trump’s tweet was a threat – yet, that’s what I heatd from sad little Chucky the Head Clown when he yammered the IC has 6 ways from Sunday to exact revenge – now THAT was a threat.

Only one reason he didn’t reference “DOJ” – he didn’t want to slip and give away the game plan.

They’re ALL pigs and traitors, lock THEM up.

I trust OUR President implicitly, God bless you, sir, as you clean house and lead the charge to MAGA 🇺🇸

Why dods no one note that McCabe’s wife had taken $750,000 from Terry MacCauliffe for her failrd Senate run. Not chump change. Meanig she or McCabe close to Clinton machine. One or both may have hoped for job in a Clinton Admin. McCabe partisan. Should have been recused himself or been recused from Clinton investigation. Testimoney now questionable.

Comey’s brother workss for consulting company that does major work for Clinton Foundation and brothsr works on Foundation matters.

There is something in Comey’s own past connecting him to Foundation, I forget what. But if only because of his brother, Comey should have recused himself.

If info is right on here that they took all Comey’s files from his office and DOJ/Sessiolns is the custodian of his records, then DOJ needs to go forward with all investigations of HRC, Comey, Yates, Lynch, etc etc and brng the full extent of justice in all cases.

‘THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST FACTOR
Well whaddaya know? According to Investment Watchdog, “It seems that our beloved FBI Director was once a director and board member of HSBC, which is tightly connected to the Clinton Foundation…this is the same HSBC [Swiss bank] that was accused of laundering drug cartel money, was heavily involved in the LIBOR scandal, and who knows what else, and all while our esteemed FBI Director was part of the senior leadership.”’

Comey had many conflicts. This is just one. MSMers totally ignore his dirt and comey is very, very dirty.

He has made the FBI dirty in the public’s mind and this won’t be erased for decades, if every.

One minor glitch in that otherwise outstanding article: HSBC is not a Swiss bank.
As one of the largest banks in the world, it probably has branches or subsidiaries in Switzerland, but it’s not based there.

nimrodman&Flepore : I used to frequent many sites. In addition to the unparalled analysis by sundance (a lone voice in the universe,) the interaction of Adult commentators at CTH is, too, without equal. On most ~all?~ other sites threads, a reasonable request for some clarification, results in a futile war of words. Here it only enhances the conversation, to the benefit of all treepers. MAGA people!

Where was the media’s concern when Obama unconstitutionally declared the Senate in recess to unconstitutionally appoint people to his newly created, unneeded labor relations bureau? That was a clear abuse of power, overreach and an impeachable offense but the MSM stayed silent (and so did the Repubs), but now, Trump legally firing a subordinate, is now a constitutional crisis….

They don’t even notice it. There are so many spouses and siblings (think Bill Burton and his brother at CBS) that the Comeys (even though this had to do with an investigation) didn’t even show up on the media radar.

It SHOULD, however, have shown up on Comey’s, being as how he was a lawyer and head of the FBI. I wonder why this never occurred to him.

Comey is a yes mam,what ever dept of justice Loretta lynch told him to do he did ! She told him to leave Hillary alone and he said yes mam! Comey should be fired ! President trump was right to fire comey!!!!!

An investigation into the New Square Four case was announced in 2001 by Mary Jo White of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan although at the end of a 15 month investigation, James Comey said:

”The investigation was closed because we thoroughly investigated and determined it wasn’t appropriate to bring charges against anybody in the case,” Mr. Comey said at a news conference on an unrelated case. ”I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.” (Does this sound familiar?)

Comey, top prosecutor in New York after being appointed by George W. Bush was in charge of the criminal investigation into the 176 last minute pardons that Bill Clinton had made as he was walking out of the White House.

Many of the pardon recipients, including Marc Rich, had donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign and also to Clinton’s presidential library and allegedly in exchange were granted pardons. But despite the evidence, Comey surprisingly found no criminal wrongdoing. (And does this sound familiar?)

Appointed by George W. Bush?
There’s your sign. Make it look like something’s going on, but
understand that it only goes far enough to make it look like
actual effort’s been made. The Bush and Clintons had been
traveling in the “same circles” ( Mena) for years before the
pardons were “investigated”. Lots of paperwork, no indictments.
By design.

My thoughts follow a different line in showing off the new 60″… All the new TVs are “smart” so it wouldn’t be any trouble at all to hook into the microphone or camera remotely and record anything in the room. Wonder if President Trump and Mr. Comey sat directly in front of it while they had dinner? 😜

Oh wyntre, I think you have done an extraordinary Treeper job of dot connecting! (It even answered the question in my mind of why the President would give these swine an interview and tour of the residence) You now have me seeing dots before my eyes.

So, a Senate hearing playing on the TV, and then PDJT’s little tweet, and then Comey cancelling his “voluntary” testimony before the hearing.

I am now suspicious enough to think that Comey’s testimony was “Brazilled” – the questions and answers were formulated before hand. In fact, the line of questions – and answers – were going to be set up to form the platform of “impeachable facts” upon which they could then act. (and someone is keeping the President informed about these matters – leakers and spies can work both ways.)

As boutis said in his comment just below your’s: “Comey running to the NYT then having to withdraw from voluntary (and advantageous he hoped) testimony shows he (I say “they”) miscalculated. Badly.

So whatever files, tapes, emails, etc. etc etc they pulled from Comey’s office – or just the thought that the President’s people may now have that material (along with PDJT’s tweet) – has stopped a few people in their tracks.

Of course we know that they won’t stop for long – not until the curtain is pulled back and they are truly, finally, stopped.

“But right now, there is something else he wants to show. It’s down the hall, in his private dining room in the West Wing, a few steps away. As is often the case when reporters come through, he has a plan, a story he wants to tell. Tonight, at dusk on May 8, he invites three TIME correspondents for a tour of his home and office, followed by a four-course dinner in the Blue Room, the oval-shaped parlor on the first floor of the executive mansion. The first three months of his presidency have been unsettling, a blur of confrontation, policy pivots and regulatory revolution. Financial markets have climbed, cruise missiles have fallen, and the world has watched with trepidation and confusion. In less than 24 hours, Trump will roil the nation again by announcing the firing of his FBI Director, James Comey, who is leading an investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia. It will set off yet another firestorm. But for now, it’s showtime once again.”

***************************************.

“A clutch of aides follow him, including McMaster, Pence and press secretary Sean Spicer. The President raises a remote and flicks on the screen, sorting through old recordings of cable news shows, until he comes to what he is after: a clip from the Senate hearing earlier in the day, as broadcast on Fox News. The first clip he shows is of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham speaking to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Graham asks if Clapper stands by his statement that he knows of no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump waits quietly, until Clapper admits that nothing has changed. Trump pantomimes a sort of victory.”

***************************************************************

“But for now, Trump is focused on his TV. He watches the screen like a coach going over game tape, studying the opposition, plotting next week’s plays. “This is one of the great inventions of all time—TiVo,” he says as he fast-forwards through the hearing.

The next clip starts to play, this time showing Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley asking Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates if they ever requested that the names of Trump, his associates or members of Congress be identified by name, or unmasked, in a legal intelligence intercept. “Watch them start to choke like dogs,” Trump says, having fun. “Watch what happens. They are desperate for breath.”

If there was any “taping” it was much more likely Comey recording Trump for their impeachment entrapment. And DOJ found it in his office when he was $(*#-canned and why it was done when he was out of town and they could get a drop on him and his flunky staff. Sessions probably has it. The media, Dems, etc all HOPE that that their spin works. Comey running to the NYT then having to withdraw from voluntary (and advantageous he hoped) testimony shows he miscalculated. Badly.

But wouldn’t have President Trump not have said anything that was impeachable? Pres. Trump’s tweet indicated that he said nothing of the sort and he might have a tape to back it. What you’re saying is that they are hiding Comey’s stuff that could be subpoenaed.

‘QUESTION for Ben Rhodes: How many Oval Office conversations did Obama tape?’

“In 2012, journalist Mark Bowden gave a talk at the Pritzker Military Museum in Chicago about his new book, “The Finish: The Killing of Osama bin Laden.” As part of the research for that book, Bowden spent 90 minutes interviewing President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. The interview went well — until it didn’t.
Bowden:
“As I stood up to say goodbye to the president, I looked down and my tape recorder had died. … That thing had always worked like a charm but there it was, just as dead as a nut on the table. So I said my goodbyes and as I was walking out of the Oval Office with Ben Rhodes, I said, ‘Ben, you’re not going to believe this, but my recorder died in the middle of that somewhere.’”
“‘Ah don’t worry about it,’ he says, ‘we record everything in here. We’ll get you a transcript before you leave.’ And he did.”
That anecdote speaks volumes about the subject at hand: A recorded, transcribed conversation that was conducted without the subject knowing.”http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/05/12/question-for-ben-rhodes-how-many-oval-office-conversations-did-obama-tape/

The “gold behind the walls” remark sounds so innocuous, but in the article it leads right into the DVR story. He’s talking about the dining room, not the Oval Office, when he says very offhandedly that they found gold in the walls, and the reporters don’t react to it at all.

But few rooms have changed so much so fast as his dining room, where he often eats his lunch amid stacks of newspapers and briefing sheets.

A few weeks back, the President ordered a gutting of the room. “We found gold behind the walls, which I always knew. Renovations are grand,” he says, boasting that contractors from the General Services Administration resurfaced the walls and redid the moldings in two days.

How I read this is that Trump has been saying (and the media et al have been denying) that he is being wiretapped by the IC. So he’s letting Comey know that since his (Trump’s) conversations are being taped by his political enemies, so then is anybody’s who talks to him.

What if Trump was actually referring to tapes that HE made when meeting with Comey? The implication by McCabe during his testimony was that it would have been highly unusual for Comey to tell him whether or not he was being investigated. My interpretation of Trump’s tweet the next day was, he let Comey know that there may be a video or audio recording of their dinner that night and if he lies about the meeting, he has it recorded. His surveillance operations were legendary, long before he became president.

TY. Completes the picture for me. President Obama just couldn’t fire Comey, even though he should have back in early July 2016. Firing him in November would have opened him to criticism he didn’t do it earlier. He wasn’t a organizational leader even though he was supposed to be a community organizer.

NORMALIZING as well a cloaking the RED DIAPER BABIES that have been raised by the 60’s hippies and commies to infiltrate all aspects of American life . HELL , the TV PROGRAM THE AMERICANS is just that . An in your face look at power couples and families well entrenched within government , institutions , and the bureaucracy . THIS IS …DEEP STATE !

And when we attempt to inform our fellow Americans their pea brains quickly remembers THEY SAW THAT TV SHOW …THE AMERICANS …and blurt out …

” YOU WATCH TOO MUCH TV …THIS is AMERICA …THAT can never happen here ”